HD 197 
1841d 
Copy 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 060 429 7 






< 



n 



ft 



REMARKS 






OP 

MR. WINTHROP, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

OS 

THE DISTRIBUTION KIIX, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 2, 1841. 



> 
•* 






REMARKS. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and 
having under consideration the bill to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the 
public lands, and to grant pre-emption rights — 

Mr. Winthrop said he had no design of trespassing at any great length on the 
time of the committee. The sin of making a long speech was one he had never 
yet committed, and he certainly should not suffer himself to be guilty of it at the 
present session. If he had succeeded in obtaining the floor immediately after the 
honorable member from South Carolina [Mr. Pickens] had concluded, and before 
he had left the House, he might have indulged in some comments on one or two 
parts of his speech. He hardly regretted, however, that he had failed, as it is was 
quite too warm weather to follow that gentleman far, either in his gloomy forebod- 
ings or his eloquent flights. One question which that gentleman had propounded, 
he would not, under any circumstances, have attempted to answer. The gentleman 
had asked emphatically, " What constitute Stale rights ?" Mr. W. said he thought 
the true rights of the States were not difficult to be ascertained, and were the same 
yesterday, to-day, and always. But " State rights," in the partisan sense of the 
term, had seemed to him to be one thing to-day, another thing to-morrow, and 
sometimes nothing at all the next day. At any rate, he had never met with a defi- 
nition which could stand the test of time and circumstances. 

It was not to be disguised (Mr. W. said) that, at first sight certainly, there were 
some difficulties about adopting this measure at the present moment, even with those 
who, under other circumstances, would be disposed to support it. We had been 
informed by the Secretary of the Treasury that there was an aggregate of debt and 
deficit to be provided for in this and the ensuing year of more than twelve millions 
of dollars. A bill had already been reported authorizing a public loan to that amount. 
Another bill might soon be expected to lay new duties on imports for the purpose 
of meeting this debt when it should fall due, and, in the meantime, of supplying the 
deficiency in the annual revenue. These bills would form a conspicuous part of 
the legislation of the present session. They would occupy a prominent place on 
the statute book of the present Congress. And it could not be denied that it would 
look a little strange to find in immediate juxtaposition with them, perhaps on the 
very next page, a bill granting away, by an outright and absolute donation, the 
funds which were already on hand, or those which were certain to come into our 
possession during such a period of the national necessity. 

Yet, strange as such a course of legislation might appear, and much as he fore- 
saw it would be harped on, for the purpose of exciting hostility towards those who 
may have assented to it, I intend (said Mr. W.) to give it my vote. I am desirous, 
therefore, of vindicating that vote, as well as 1 can, in advance. I wish, in other 
words, in the few remarks with which I shall trouble the committee this morning, 
to take my stand, where so many other gentlemen who have opposed the bill have 



taken theirs, at the very doors of the Treasury, and with its deplorable condition of 
emptiness and exhaustion full in my view, (a condition, let me say, which we, sir, 
had no hand in creating,) to justify, as far as I am able, my assent to an act, by 
which we shall seem to be literally " taking away from that which has not, even 
that which it has." 

For the purpose of this justification, it seems to me essential to maintain, in the 
first place, that the moneys which are to be distributed by this bill are held by the 
National Government in some different right and upon some different conditions 
from those which we are about to collect. In other words, it is necessary to estab- 
lish a broad and clear distinction, so far as the constitutional powers and duties of 
Congress are concerned, between the proceeds of the public lands and the annual 
receipts from other sources of revenue. 

For one, certainly, I could never give my support to this bill, unless I were con- 
vinced that such a distinction exists. I could never vote to tax with a view to dis- 
tribution. If, indeed, such a surplus were again accumulated in the Treasury as 
we saw there a few years ago, I might be willing to get rid of it in the best way I 
could, from whatever source it might have been collected ; but to impose taxes with 
one hand, and distribute them with the other, would, in my judgment, be utterly 
unjustifiable as well as grossly unconstitutional. 

Does, then, such a distinction exist"? Do the proceeds of the public lands come 
into the Treasury under such different circumstances from its ordinary receipts as 
to constitute in some sort a special fund ? 

Gentlemen on the other side say, no. They maintain that when the lands have 
once been turned into moneys, and those moneys have been placed in the Treasury, 
they are in no degree distinguishable from the ordinary revenues of the country. 
And so entirely do they confound the two classes of receipts, as to tell us that, if 
Congress should pass this distribution bill, all the salutary safeguards thrown around 
the taxing power by our fathers would be broken down ! This was the language 
of the honorable member from Maine, (Mr. Clifford.) 

Now what under the sun have the proceeds of the public lands to do with the 
taxing power? Is it a tax to give a man an acre of the best land on the face of 
the earth for a dollar and a quarter, and that at his own particular demand ? If it 
be, sir, it is a tax which the People of this country may well be content to bear. 
Commend me to such taxes. I desire no safeguards against them. 1 am willing 
to submit to such taxation as this, even without representation. 

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the most cursory examination of the Consti- 
tution is sufficient to show that there is no analogy whatever between these different 
classes of revenue. 

The power to lay taxes is a power, as we all know, created by the Constitution 
itself. No such power existed before the Constitution was established. And the 
exercise of the power is limited by the express letter of the Constitution to certain 
specified purposes. 

" Congress shall have power (says the Constitution) to lay and collect taxes, du- 
ties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence 
and general welfare of the United States" — language, certainly, pretty broad and 
comprehensive in itself, but which has received a construction limiting it to the ob- 
jects for which Congress, in other parts of the Constitution, is empowered to provide. 

But how is it as to the public lands'? The power of Congress over those lands 
was not originally created by the Constitution. A large portion of those lands was 
ceded to the General Government prior to the adoption of that instrument. Another 
portion was ceded soon after its adoption. And a third and fourth portion were 
purchased at subsequent and separate periods. The Constitution was framed with 
little or no reference to the lands. In the original draught of that instrument, there 
was not a line, or a word, or a syllable, in allusion to them. And the only provi- 
sion which was afterwards inserted by the Convention, or can be found in relation 
to them now, is as follows : 



11 Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, 
the territory or other property belonging to the United States ; and nothing in this Constitution 
shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States or of any particular State." 

And now, what is there, Mr. Chairman, in this provision which makes it incum- 
bent on Congress to appropriate the proceeds of these lands to one purpose rather 
than to another ? What language is there in this clause, or what construction of 
any language, which gives us the authority to place them in the Treasury for the 
ordinary expenditures of the Government, which does not equally give us the au- 
thority to distribute them among the States ? Where do we get the power to dis- 
pose of the proceeds at all, except as a necessary implication from the power to 
dispose of the lands'? Sir, I put to the committee this dilemma — if the power to 
dispose of" the lands does not carry with it the power to dispose of the proceeds, 
we have no such power ; and if it does, then the latter power is co-equal and co- 
extensive with the former. And is there any one who sets limits to the power of 
disposing of the lands? It is loo late to do so. We have already appropriated 
them to almost every object that can be named — to education, to internal improve- 
ments, to charity, to the use of individuals, of corporations, and of States. 

And there is as little, Mr. Chairman, in the reason of the thing, as there is in the 
language of the Constitution, for limiting the disposition of the moneys received 
from the sales of the public lands. The People may well be jealous of entrusting 
even their own Representatives with the power of taxing them for every purpose at 
their pleasure. But, as I have already said, the sales of the public lands involve 
no taxation — they impose no burdens upon any body. In regard to them, there- 
fore, the People are entirely safe in giving us the full latitude of a sound and rea- 
sonable discretion. And such a discretion I hold they have given us. 

But gentlemen tell us that inasmuch as the distribution of the proceeds of the 
public lands will involve the necessity of laying additional taxes on imports, it 
amounts to the same thing as distributing the receipts from taxation. Why, sir, the 
same reasoning might almost as well be adduced against appropriating the Smithson- 
ian fund to the object for which it was designed. That fund, if applied to the 
ordinary expenditures of the Government, would save the necessity of raising an 
equal amount by taxation. And its appropriation to the diffusion of useful knowl- 
edge among mankind, according to the terms of the bequest, might, with almost as 
much justice, be complained of as involving the necessity of imposing additional 
burdens on the People as the distribution for which this bill provides ; if, as I main- 
tain, the proceeds of the public lands constitute a separate fund in the Treasury 
entirely distinguishable from the ordinary revenues of the country. 

Again, sir, it has been suggested that, upon this principle, the National Govern- 
ment might do to almost any extent indirectly, that which it is admitted they have 
no power to do directly. They might tax the People, we are told, to almost any 
amount for the purchase of new lands, and then go on to sell them forthwith and 
distribute the proceeds. But it is to be observed, Mr. Chairman, in the first place, 
that such an abuse would have its origin in the power to purchase and not in the 
power to distribute. And the power to purchase new territory, we all know, is one 
of very questionable constitutionality. The honorable member from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Yngbrsoll] the other day alluded to my respected colleague in front of me 
[Mr. Adams] as having denied the constitutionality of the Louisiana purchase. My 
colleague was not alone in that denial. Mr. Jefferson himself, in a letter to Mr. 
Breckenridge, written at the time, expressly declared that the Executive in making 
that purchase " had done an act beyond the Constitution." 

But even were it not so ; even were the power of purchasing territory entirely 
indisputable and unlimited, what would this suggestion amount to, but to one of 
those arguments against the use or existence of a power from its liability to abuse, 
which may be brought alike against any and every branch of authority which the 
Constitution bestows? Sir, if such arguments are to have weight, we must revoke 



aii authority, renounce ail Government, abandon all society. Every power may 
be abused, and the only check or safeguard we can have is in the responsibility of 
those to whom power is entrusted. 

I hold, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that there is a plain and palpable distinction 
between the proceeds of the public lands and the other receipts into the Treasury 
of the nation, and that while the latter are limited to certain specified objects of ap- 
propriation, the former are placed freely, so far at least as the Constitution is con- 
cerned, at the discretion of Congress — a discretion only controlled by the responsi- 
bility of those who exercise it, to the People who elected them. 

And, indeed, this doctrine has too often been admitted, asserted, and acted upon 
even by those who have been the most strenuous opponents of this measure of dis- 
tribution, to require any more extended illustration. It was expressly asserted by 
General Jackson, as long ago as 1832. In his Annual Message of that year, he 
says : 

*' As the lands may now be considered as relieved from this pledge, [the payment of the public 
debt,] the object for which they were ceded having been accomplished, it is in the discretion of 
Congress to dispose of them in such way as best to conduce to the quiet, harmony, and general 
interest of the American People." 

The same doctrine has been admitted, or certainly implied, by all the friends of 
cession, as it is called, whether absolute or conditional, from that day to this. For 
on what principle could Congress cede away the whole or any part of the lands 
themselves, which does not imply a high and plenary discretion on their part to 
dispose of the proceeds also 1 

I turn, then, Mr. Chairman, from this first point in my argument, to inquire what 
considerations should influence us in the exercise of this discretion, and, more es- 
pecially, what considerations will justify us in the particular exercise of it which is 
now proposed. 

And, first, I maintain that Congress is not bound in such a case to look altogether 
to the necessities of the National Treasury. Phis would be to destroy the whole 
effect of the distinction just established, and practically to place the proceeds of the 
public lands on the same footing with any other description of income. We may 
take a larger and more liberal view of things. We may look, and we ought to 
look, to considerations of equity, to considerations of expediency, to considerations 
commensurate with the whole country, or, as General Jackson said, with " the 
quiet, harmony, and general interest of the American People." 

Why, sir, even in relation to the ordinary revenues of the country, the wants of 
the Government are not always exclusively regarded. What would be the conduct 
of Congress at the present session in relation to what is called the compromise act, 
if the necessities of the nation were to be the only rule of action? Under the 
provisions of that act, five millions of dollars are to be withdrawn from the annua! 
revenues of the country, at a moment when, as I have said, there is already a debt 
and deficiency of twelve millions. We are about to give a silent assent, by leav- 
ing that act in operation and laying new duties at the same time, to a course of pro- 
ceeding by no means remotely analogous, and, to my mind, quite as objectionable, 
abstractly considered, as that now under discussion. We are about to remit duties 
with one hand, while we collect them with the other. Upon what principle will 
this be done ? Why, upon the principle of a previous compact, an existing under- 
standing, or a high and eminent expediency. For myself, I take leave to say, I 
admit no compact. Those whom I have the honor to represent were not parties to 
any compact. Nor can I regard it as eminentl}' expedient either, to pursue such a 
course. On the contrary, 1 am disposed to think that, as an abstract question of 
policy and statesmanship, the best way of supplying the existing deficiency in the 
Treasury would be to suspend the operation of the compromise act, and lay duties 
on a few only of the leading articles of import, instead of deranging the operations 
of the whole business community by a sudden imposition of 20 per cent, ad valorem 



on every article of commerce which is now free, and that as a temporary expedient. 
But tins I well know is out of the question. 1 allude to the subject only for illus- 
tration. The act will be carried out. Duties to the amount of five millions will 
be taken off, and new duties to the amount of twelve millions will be laid on. And 
this will be done, as i have said, on some grounds of compact, understanding, or 
expediency. 

Well, sir, and are there no such grounds for the measure we are now discussing? 
Is there no compact in the case, no expediency, no equity 1 

I will not go into an elaborate history of the public lands of the United States 
to show my understanding of the terms on which the original cession of a large 
portion of them was made by the States. That history is familiar to the House and 
to the country. Those terms have been argued again and again, not only in these 
halls, but in the halls of every Legislature throughout the country. I shall content 
myself with saving, in the most general terms, on this head, that, while I cannot go 
the length of declaring, that the appropriation of the proceeds of the public lands 
to the ordinary purposes of Government would be an absolute violation of the com- 
pact, 1 have yet no hesitation in affirming that, in my humble judgment, a distri- 
bution of those proceeds among the States would be far more in accordance both 
with the letter and the spirit of that compact. 

I am willing to admit, however, that, as to the intention and contemplation of the 
States at the time these cessions were made, 1 think very little can be safely or 
certainly argued. The contemplation of the Slates could not have reached to a 
day like this. High as were the hopes, sanguine as were the expectations, of our 
fathers at that time, of the glorious results of the liberty they had achieved, and 
the institutions they had established, it never could have entered into their hearts to 
conceive of a condition of the country, in which, the public debt being all paid off, 
such countless acres of territory should remain as the rich and unencumbered in- 
heritance of their children. These cessions certainly were made with no regard to 
such a state of things. They were made with a view to the present, and not to the 
future. They were made to allay the jealousies and settle the contentions to which 
the exclusive claims of certain separate States had given rise, and to defray the 
expenses which their common independence had cost. 

The argument in favor of this measure, from the terms of cession, however, 
covers only the lands which were ceded. I am aware it is sometimes contended 
that the lands subsequently purchased may be considered as having been purchased 
with the proceeds of those ceded, and may thus be made subject to the same prin- 
ciple of disposition. But I prefer, for myself, to rely on considerations which are 
directly and equally applicable to the whole domain. 

I come, then, to some explanation of those considerations of eminent expediency, 
which, in my judgment, should induce us to exercise the discretionary authority we 
unquestionably possess over the proceeds of the public lands, in the manner pointed 
out by the bill, viz: by distributing them among^ the States, instead of retaining 
them to eke out the scanty contents of our own Treasury. 

And I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Chairman, that I find these considera- 
tions exclusively in the situation of some of the States of this Union. There is no 
feature in the condition of the country, lamentable as that condition is in so many 
respects, which is calculated to excite such serious apprehension for its prosperity 
and its honor as the deep indebtedness of so many of the States. Sir, we may not 
assume their debts, directly or indirectly. We have no constitutional power to do 
so. But we may do something, and by this bill we should do something, to aid, 
encourage, and sustain them in their efforts to relieve themselves. And whatever 
we can do constitutionally, we are bound to do by every consideration of expedi- 
ency and of equity, of interest and of honor. 

Who is there that desires, or is willing if he can help it, to see the sovereign 
States of this Union, or any number of them, dishonored before the world, their 



6 

character lost, their credit ruined, their faith a by-word among the nations'? I 
there be any such man here or elsewhere, he is no true friend to his country's hon- 
or. For, the honor of each individual State in this Union is bound up in the same 
bundle of life with that of every other, and they constitute together the honor of 
the nation. It is in vain to say that, if we can only pay our own way, and keep 
our own head above water, our character is safe. The People of the United States 
are one People. They rule alike, in State and in nation. They cannot keep their 
faith and break their faith. They cannot maintain two characters, nor can a stain 
upon the character of any portion of them fail to cast a reflected stain upon the 
character of all the rest. 

Doubtless, the conduct of many of the States has been rash and reckless in in- 
curring so great liabilities. But who stimulated that rashness — who spurred on that 
recklessness 1 ? It is not my desire to mingle party criminations in this debate, but 
I cannot help thinking that it is the duty of those who are now in power to remem- 
ber, in this connexion, that these wild investments of State credit in banks and in- 
ternal improvements were among the most direct and undoubted consequences of 
that mad spirit of speculation which the wanton experiments of our predecessors 
originally engendered — a spirit whose ravages upon the prosperity and welfare of 
the country it is our high and special commission from the People to repair. 

But there is another consideration connected with the origin of these debts which 
we ought even less to lose sight of. By far the greater part of the liabilities under 
which so many of the States are now oppressed were incurred for a national ob- 
ject. Let not gentlemen start when I pronounce internal improvements a national 
object. I am not going to argue the constitutionality or expediency of undertaking 
such works. What I mean to say, and all I mean to say, is, that they exert a most 
powerful and momentous influence on the national prosperity and the national perma- 
nency. What is there so eminently calculated to bind together this blessed Union 
of ours in the bonds of mutual friendship and mutual interest, mutual confidence 
and kindness, as the railroad system 1 How does it enable us to laugh to scorn the 
prophecies of dissolution and separation, which are so often founded on our extent 
of territory ? What capacities, of almost indefinite reach, has it not given to our 
republican machinery 1 What new elements of democracy has it not introduced 
into the action of that machinery 1 James Madison, in the Federalist, pronounced 
the necessary limits of a democracy to he those within which the whole People 
could meet together conveniently, to consult on their own affairs; and the necessary 
limits of a republic, those within which the Representatives of the People could as- 
semble as often as it was needful, to attend to the business of their constituents. 
Sir, railroads are to distance what representation is to numbers. From what cor- 
ner of the continent of North America might not the Representatives of the People 
easily and often come together by the agency of this railroad system 1 Nay, has 
not the same miraculous agency exhibited the People themselves during the last 
year, taking their own business into their own hands, and coming together from 
places hundreds, and I had almost said thousands, of miles apart, to consult on their 
common fortunes 1 

Our fathers, Mr. Chairman, without distinction of party, considered internal im- 
provements, even before railroads were known, as national objects. They differed 
as to the constitutional power of constructing them. But even those who main- 
tained that such a power did not exist, were of opinion that it ought to exist. Hear 
what Thomas Jefferson himself said on this subject, in his last message of his last 
term, when he was parting from public life forever, and had no longer any ambitious 
objects to subserve — a passage to which I beg the attention of the committee, as 
proving not only that Jefferson was in favor of internal improvements at that period 
of his life, but of accumulating even a surplus revenue to pay for them : 

"The probable accumulation of the surplusses of revenue beyond what ean be applied to th© 
payment of the public debt, whenever the freedom and safety of our commerce shall be restored, 



merits the consideration of Congress. Shall it lie unproductive in the public vaults? Shall the 
revenue be reduced? Or shall it not rather be appropriated to the improvement of roads, canals, 
rivers, education, and other great foundations of prosperity and union, under the powers which 
Congress may already possess, or such amendment of the Constitution as may be approved by the 
States?" 

This was the language of Mr. Jefferson. He may have changed his opinions at 
a later day, but these were the opinions he expressed in his last official delaration 
to the country. The same sentiments may be found even more developed in one 
of his previous messages. The same sentiments were more than once expressed by 
Mr. Monroe. And we all know what were the opinions of my honored colleagne 
in front of me. Had his views been sustained by the country, it may be safely said 
that the States would have had far less occasion to involve themselves in debt for 
works of this sort. But, sir, the day for any regret on that score is past. I only 
desired to remind the committee that it was mainly for these objects of internal im- 
provement, thus by the united testimony of our fathers, and thus ten-fold more by 
our own experience of agencies invented since they went down to their graves — 
objects of national concern — that it was for these that the great burden of State li- 
abilities had been contracted. Unquestionably the States have prosecuted these 
works too extensively. Unquestionably many of the works they have constructed 
are greatly in advance of the public wants. Led away, in part, by the seductive 
influence of Government experiments, they were hurried along still more by the 
admiration and excitement which the extraordinary inventions of our day could not 
but occasion. They caught something of the impetus of the marvellous enginerv 
they were constructing. They did not learn soon enough the use of the brakes, or 
were too much excited to hold them hard enough down ; and they have been borne 
along to the very brink of their own ruin. But it was in a noble cause, and one 
which, though it has involved them in embarrassments, has contributed incalculably 
to the prosperity and permanency of the Union. 

And here, Mr. Chairman, I must be allowed to allude to an imputation upon the 
Northern and Eastern members of this House, which fell originally, I think, from 
the honorable member from Maine, [Mr, Clifford,] but which was repeated by 
the honorable member from Georgia, [Mr. Alford.] It was this — that we were 
in favor of the measure on your table as the basis, or entering wedge, I believe it 
was called, of a protective tariff. The same charge was made against us a day or 
two ago from another quarter, when we voted for the paltry sum of twenty-five 
thousand dollars for the relief of the widow of the lamented Harrison. There was 
something more of absurdity in the latter charge than in the former, but there was 
no more of injustice. Sir, I never shall disclaim the character of being a friend to 
the American System, nor ever fail to give my vote or voice in its behalf, when- 
ever an opportunity occurs. But I repel the imputation that any opinions on this 
subject are the source of my support to the present bill. It would be easy, if I 
were disposed to indulge in retorts or recriminations, to charge upon gentlemen who 
oppose this bill, that the principles on which they condemn it are only the cover 
for their hostility to every thing like a custom-house duty. But I will make no 
charges of any sort. It is enough for me to deny for myself and my Northern col- 
leagues that there is any thing selfish or sectional in our support of this measure. 
Sir, if there be any thing sectional, it is not our own section that we regard in this 
matter. It is for Georgia we feel, if she has contracted any debts which she finds 
it difficult to discharge. It is for Mississippi, and Alabama, and Illinois, and In- 
diana, and Ohio, and Maryland, and Pennsylvania. As for New England, there 
are but five millions of State debts among all six of her States, and four millions 
and a half of those are the debts of Massachusetts. And let me assure the House I 
do not plead for Massachusetts in this business. She would not thank me for asking 
aid from any quarter in redeeming her liabilities. Her stock has stood from the be- 
ginning second to none on the foreign exchange, and second to none it will stand 
to the end. The character of her roads is an ample guaranty of her bonds. But her 



8 

credit rests on something higher than the profits of travel or the income of her 
treasury. The industry of her people is the endorser of her paper — an industry, 
the manufacturing branch of which alone has been proved to yield a product of 
almost ninety millions of dollars in a single year, and which would be ready, I will 
warrant, to respond in the full amount of its hard but honest earnings, rather than 
the credit of the Commonwealth should be called in question for a moment. 

It is no mere figure of speech, Mr. Chairman, to say that the industry of the 
population of Massachusetts is the endorser of her bonds. I remember well to have 
heard my honored friend, the Secretary of State, say, on some public occasion, that; 
happening to show to an English gentleman of fortune, during his late visit to the 
mother country, a copy of the statistical tables which exhibited the enormous an- 
nual product of Massachusetts labor, the inquiry was instantly made — has she any 
*stock in the market? — which, being answered in the affirmative, was forthwith fol- 
lowed by an investment in her stock of some fifty or sixty thousand dollars, or, it 
may have been, pounds. 

Indeed, sir, I may say, not only as to this, but as to all the other great measures 
of reform which are proposed for our consideration at the present session, that no 
part of the country is more independent than New England, and no State more so 
than Massachusetts. Whether you look to the Distribution Act, or the Bank Act, 
or the Bankrupt Act, which constitute, perhaps, the trinoda necessitas of the times, 
Massachusetts can afford to be as indifferent as any State in the Union. She needs 
no proceeds of land sales to prop her credit. She needs no bank to render her 
own currency sound and uniform. While, as to the bankrupt law, her main inter- 
est in that, is the interest of a creditor, anxious that her debtors in the South and 
West should have a chance to wipe off their old scores even at great loss to herself, 
in order that they may once more resume their relations as her customers, and give 
her an opportunity to trade with'them and trust them again. 

And even as to the tariff itself, I am inclined to think she can hold out without 
murmuring, under a reduction of duties, at least as long as the iron-workers of 
Pennsylvania, or the wheat-growers of New York, or the tobacco-planters of 
Virginia and Maryland, Nor does she desire, as I believe, the adoption of any 
measure on the subject, but such as may seem necessary, in a broad, national view, 
and after due investigation of the facts, to protect the common interests of all 
branches of American industry, against the unequal competition of foreign labor, 
or the injurious influence of foreign legislation. 

But there are other States in the Union with far heavier loads upon their backs, 
and, perhaps, a good deal less able to bear them. And though this bill may not give 
them all they require, it will afford them unquestionably a most welcome relief. As 
was admirably remarked by the President in his late message, " with States labor- 
ing under no extreme pressure from debt, the fund which they would derive from 
this source would enable them to improve their condition in an eminent degree." 
" With the debtor States it would effect relief to a great extent of the citizens from 
a heavy burden of direct taxation which presses with severity on the laboring classes, 
and eminently assist in restoring the general prosperity. An immediate advance 
would take place in the price of the State securities, and the attitude of the States 
would become once more, as it ever should be, lofty and erect." 

And now let me protest once more against being charged with advocating either 
a direct or indirect assumption of the State debts. And in aid of that protest, let 
me summon up a single fact from the most familiar history of the past. I mean 
the fact that this same measure of distribution was not only proposed, but passed by 
a majority of both branches of Congress, before one dollar of State debts was con- 
tracted. General Jackson's veto arrested it. — There can be no pretence, then, 
that this measure was devised with any reference to State debts. The most that 
can be said, is, (and that I fearlessly avow,) that we are impelled by the existence 
of those debts to make another and a stronger effort to carry through and consum- 
mate a scheme, which we had long before approved and advocated. 



Mr. Chairman, these are the views, briefly and imperfectly expressed, which, in 
ray mind, outweigh all considerations of the necessities of our own Treasury, and 
compel me to vote for this bill. The necessities of the Treasury can be supplied 
from other sources. The nation is not yet in such a beggarly condition as gentle- 
men would have us think. True, sir, the revenues of the country have been most 
extravagantly and wastefully dealt with for some years past. Our cash on hand has 
all been expended, and our credit largely drawn upon. But we have inexhaustible 
resources still left, and a generous and patriotic People to sustain us in putting 
them in requisition. — It will be time enough to ^discuss this question, however, 
when the revenue bill comes up. I will only say now, in reply to calculations and 
estimates which have been made on the other side, that, from the best information 
I can obtain, from those accustomed to examine into such matters in the mer- 
cantile community 1 have the honor to represent, a revenue of from eight to twelve 
millions of dollars might be raised by a 20 per cent, ad valorem duty on a home 
valuation of three articles only — I mean silks, stuff-goods, and linens. 

One idea more, Mr. Chairman, and I will conclude. Sir, I maintain that this, 
after all, is not a question between distributing the proceeds of the public lands 
among the States, and retaining them honestly and permanently in the Treasury. 
Gentlemen hold up to the House and to the country a false issue in presenting the 
question in that form. Have they forgotten there is such a word as cession in the 
dictionary, or, as my colleague in front of me said the other day, on another sub- 
ject, are their " lips forbid to name that once familiar word 1" I do not mean 
*-e-s-session. We have heard enough about extra sessions, and extraordinary ses- 
sions, and the extraordinary doings of extraordinary sessions. Honorable members 
all round the House have rung these changes to our heart's content. I mean 
e-e-s-cession. Have gentlemen forgotten that General Jackson himself proposed 
in his first message that " the public lands should cease as soon as practicable to be 
a source of revenue," and that the proposition was approved and sustained by the 
great mass of his friends and followers 1 Have they forgotten that a plan for ceding 
the lands to the States in which they lie, (a measure which, if commenced in favor 
of the existing States, must in all equity be carried out as fast as new States are 
formed, and which would thus ultimately cover the whole public domain,) was de- 
vised not a hundred years ago, and not a thousand miles from South Carolina itself? — 
A plan for giving up outright one-half of the proceeds, and leaving us, as I think, 
little or no hope of ever seeing the other half. It does not lie, Mr. Chairman, with 
gentlemen who have advanced or sustained such schemes as these, to charge the 
friends of distribution with abstracting the revenues or robbing the exchequer. 

I will not detain the committee by going into any examination of this project of 
cession. Let me only say that all that is just and reasonable I shall always be wil- 
ling, so far as my vote is concerned, to yield to the new States. I rejoice in the 
rapidity of their advancement, even although, in the scale of national importance, 
the law of their increase is the law of our decrease. I welcome their Representa- 
tives as they come thronging in augmented numbers, under a new apportionment, 
to occupy this Hall, even though it should be to push some of us from our stools. 
It gave me a thrill of pleasure and of pride not often experienced, when an honor- 
able Senator from Indiana [Mr. Smith] told me the other day in conversation that, 
after careful examination, he believed that not one measure which had been passed 
by Congress for the benefit of the new States, could have been carried without the 
votes of Massachusetts. I hope they may never ask for those votes in vain. For 
one, I will not cavil about the ten per cent, allowed them in this bill. I do not 
begrudge them the half million of acres which it proposes to make up to them. I 
go cheerfully even for the pre-emption clause. But I believe the contemplated 
cession would be a fatal dowry to them, as well as a measure full of injustice to us. 
Between that, therefore, and distribution, which I consider the real question at stake* 
I cannot hesitate a moment. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 060 429 7 



